New CP idea

Supplement ideas, house rules, homemade stat cards, homebrew weapon types, and other cool variations

Moderators: warman45, Rev. Sylvanus

Re: New CP idea

Postby IVhorseman » Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:32 pm

I indeed edited it during your response. I don't know how comfortable I'd be with bastard rifles and autoguns knocking figs back. Technically, a flamethrower would cause knockback too. I suppose it actually works flavor-wise with flamethrowers causing figs to stumble around on fire, but a stumble die works better for that.

I specifically recommend them for shotguns because shotguns fall in an awkward position of not being as good ranged weapons as rifles are, while only having an edge over melee weapons in a select few CC situations.

Like, I would rather have a guy with a pistol and a knife than a guy with a shotgun under the current rules. If they're in lethal shotgun range, they're prooobably also within stabbing range, and if they're not at least I've entered close combat and can start making counter-attacks and the like. If too far away for a shotgun blast, a pistol at 5-6" is more lethal (about 1/8 chance for a lethal shotgun blast at this range).
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:22 am

IVhorseman wrote:I indeed edited it during your response. I don't know how comfortable I'd be with bastard rifles and autoguns knocking figs back. Technically, a flamethrower would cause knockback too. I suppose it actually works flavor-wise with flamethrowers causing figs to stumble around on fire, but a stumble die works better for that.

Yeah. Really, the bastard stats are wherever between 1" and 2" is more thematically appropriate, so select accordingly. I might boost the shotgun up to 1d8+2 just for kicks.

Weapons that cause knockback to minifigs or smaller:
Heavy Melee Weapon
Two-Handed Melee Weapon
Bastard Shotgun

IVhorseman wrote:If too far away for a shotgun blast, a pistol at 5-6" is more lethal (about 1/8 chance for a lethal shotgun blast at this range).

By design. A shotgun should be less lethal than a pistol at the limit of pistol range. The advantage of the shotgun is walking up to multiple guys foolishly standing too close together and catching a bunch of them in the blast.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby Rev. Sylvanus » Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:31 am

IVhorseman wrote:Like, I would rather have a guy with a pistol and a knife than a guy with a shotgun under the current rules. If they're in lethal shotgun range, they're prooobably also within stabbing range, and if they're not at least I've entered close combat and can start making counter-attacks and the like. If too far away for a shotgun blast, a pistol at 5-6" is more lethal (about 1/8 chance for a lethal shotgun blast at this range).


Another interesting note that probably goes without saying, but once you start adding a few more figs with the same weapon, shotgun lethality (like machinegun lethality) compounds compared to the pistol. Even three guys with a pistol each, you'll whack two opposing figs statistically. Three guys each wielding even the "pistol" version of the shotgun...I don't want to be anywhere near those overlapping arcs.
For Your Reading Pleasure: Rev's Battle Reports

Reference Sheets: Animals and Mounts / Medieval Weapons

Factions: Dragon Guard / Hiimboredagain Raiders
User avatar
Rev. Sylvanus
Galidor
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:14 pm
Location: Appalachia

Re: New CP idea

Postby mercury19 » Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:27 pm

Is this going to be a part of the rules? It sounds really cool, but not much has been said for a while.
User avatar
mercury19
Minifig
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:56 pm
Location: Probably somewhere in the Brikverse. Oh wait, you mean physically?

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:17 pm

mercury19 wrote:Is this going to be a part of the rules? It sounds really cool, but not much has been said for a while.

Still mulling it over. It's a big change, so I don't want to pull the trigger until I have more of the kinks worked out. My current thinking is that I'll prioritize finishing a complete ruleset with the CP still in, just in case I'm not able to get the CP-less version working to my satisfaction then we'll still have the CP to fall back on like Bonn-o-Tron.

One of the sticking points is that I'm still trying to decide the best way to handle buying buildings in a CP-less system. I'm leaning towards buildings being free and having a default 0 Power no matter how big they are, and then requiring players to either buy specific Power sources for the buildings they want to have powered, buying Weapons with a Power sources built in plus a Gunner to serve as a single "Unit," or have all Weapons and devices be minifig-powered.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby Vason » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:18 am

stubby wrote: I might boost the shotgun up to 1d8+2 just for kicks.

I like that this gives a potent option for dealing with armor at point blank range, I'd be all for it.

stubby wrote: I'm leaning towards buildings being free and having a default 0 Power no matter how big they are, and then requiring players to either buy specific Power sources for the buildings they want to have powered, buying Weapons with a Power sources built in plus a Gunner to serve as a single "Unit," or have all Weapons and devices be minifig-powered.

Multiple experiences in attempting to siege castles with infantry have shown me that buildings should absolutely not be free. The height and cover provided by even a simple 5" tall wall can make a fight between otherwise equal armies become a walk in the park for the army on the wall, while a 10" wall makes the fight a massacre (figs on the ground won't be able to hit ones on the wall at all). That said, we've yet to figure out a proper cost for buildings in the current system, since if you've spent the CP on making a 12" wide, 3d10 castle (36CP), you might as well add 4 more CP and make it a crawling fortress. Which is actually kind of awesome, and I only just now realized is possible and will have to make it happen.
Perhaps make buildings cost some fraction of their longest dimension, and keep the 0 power caveat still in place?
User avatar
Vason
Champion
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 10:24 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:58 am

Another element I'm toying with is the Structure Level - "free" buildings and vehicles are automatically stuck with 1d10 armor (or less), no locks on the doors, no reinforced windows, etc., in addition to not being able to power weapons and devices. Basically I want to encourage a lot more scenery and background props without any economic disincentives attached.

Current thoughts:

First, turn Unit Inches into a single symbol that combines U and ". So something like Ü Ű ϋ ῧ. This is cool because it looks like a minifig smiley face, and it also kind of pokes fun at that warhammer ultramarine upsilon thing Ʊ, and it's well known that umlauts are metal.

Minifigs, Creatures, Vehicle + Pilot
Cost: Size x ϋ
SL: Size x 1/2 (up to SL:3)
Move: 5" at Size 1, 10" at Size 2+. Half Speed for Shielded, as usual.

Buildings (basic)
Cost: Free
SL: 1
Power: 0

Building ϋpgrades (up to Size)
Cost: ϋ
SL: +1 (up to Size / 4, max of 4)
Power: +1
+1 free building staff (any minifig)

You'll note that this means that for the same price as a minifig plus nothing, you can get a minifig plus a 1" vehicle, or a minifig +1 building upgrade. I'm not super worried about this, since a ϋ is more about buying Actions than infrastructure, but this obviously doesn't address the fact that 10 guys in a castle is probably better than 10 guys laying siege to it. The siegers have mobility and freedom of position on their side, but it's still a tricky thing.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby Battlegrinder » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:24 pm

stubby wrote:Another element I'm toying with is the Structure Level - "free" buildings and vehicles are automatically stuck with 1d10 armor (or less), no locks on the doors, no reinforced windows, etc., in addition to not being able to power weapons and devices. Basically I want to encourage a lot more scenery and background props without any economic disincentives attached.



I thought we pretty much did that already?

stubby wrote:Current thoughts:

First, turn Unit Inches into a single symbol that combines U and ". So something like Ü Ű ϋ ῧ. This is cool because it looks like a minifig smiley face, and it also kind of pokes fun at that warhammer ultramarine upsilon thing Ʊ, and it's well known that umlauts are metal.



I always thought of it as an upside down Omega.

stubby wrote:You'll note that this means that for the same price as a minifig plus nothing, you can get a minifig plus a 1" vehicle, or a minifig +1 building upgrade. I'm not super worried about this, since a ϋ is more about buying Actions than infrastructure, but this obviously doesn't address the fact that 10 guys in a castle is probably better than 10 guys laying siege to it. The siegers have mobility and freedom of position on their side, but it's still a tricky thing.


Given that 5 to 1 odds are considered fair for attack a fortified line IRL, having the defenders be at a slight advantage in brikwars when odds are even is quite an improvement. And besides, if you're attacking a castle, its dollars to donuts that you brought some siege weapons and other goodies along with your infantry.
Image

"There's suspension of disbelief and then there's insulting my fucking intelligence"
Noah Antwiler
User avatar
Battlegrinder
Dimmy
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 5:52 pm
Location: Limbo

Re: New CP idea

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Thu May 15, 2014 6:45 pm

I like the idea of creating a simpler system then CP, but what bugs me about the proposed system is that it discourages under-powering your creations.
Now why is that a bad thing you may ask. Well because IMO under-powering your creations stats is a very important in cases where it seems more appropriate thematically.
Let's say for example that in 'the Great Riot Battles of the Hobo Uprising' the hobo's have build a massive moving fortress with integrated rabies infested cult cannon.
It would be more fun and more appropriate if my creation had a Structure Level of 1 but the rules would encourage me to go higher as I would otherwise have a disadvantage against my opponent.
I feel as if it discourages fielding hilariously ineffective units and or vehicles and promotes getting the most out of what you buy, which doesn't always serve theme and humor IMO. There would never be a reason for me to field under equipped morons as part of my army while they often cause the most hilarity and add the flavor to your army.

I agree that it is a pain in the ass to equal armies with CP but I don't think this is solved with a simpler point system.
I think the problem lies between the players feeling of fairness and not so much in the rules themselves .
For example when a player has a feeling of unfairness to either his or his opponents side, I would recommend that they negotiate removing or adding units until both sides feel that it is fair.
You could literally negotiate about everything. Some examples:
"Okay you get the better troops but I get to occupy the tower in the middle of the field"
"alright but then I would like to start first"
or
"Okay you can have the Panzer mounted on the back of T-Rex Piltogg but I get a slice of your pizza and he only enters the game on turn 4"
It could be anything really, until both parties are satisfied. This could even remove the imbalance created by having one player who is way more experienced.
"alright, Tom get's the squad of Elite Piltogg BDSM Slavers because it's his first game".
This also removes the problems you get when one player knows how to spend his/her CP more efficiently than the other and also factors in players who don't mind or even like being the underdog.

Besides war was never truly fair. It's not even about fair. It's not about having a "fair" chance to 'win' the game. It's about feeling like you can make a difference. It's about knowing that you have enough resources to help create an exciting, enjoyable and hilarious game.

Just my two cents.
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
User avatar
*CRAZYHORSE*
My Little Pony
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Procrasturbating.

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Thu May 15, 2014 10:09 pm

There will still be some form of CP in the MOC half of the book; UI will buy you the basic form of any creation, and CP will fine tune it. What this means is that the UI budget will determine the size of the battle, and the CP budget will determine how much extra complexity there is.

So far, I'm seeing that UI turns out to be a lot more balanced than CP. CP measures the value of the equipment, ordinance, and infrastructure; UI measures your army's capacity to act. It turns out the equipment value is not a good predictor of effectiveness - whether you have ten guns or ten thousand, every inch worth of units can generally deliver one or two dice of damage per turn. The determining factor tends to be how you budget those Actions and apply them to your targets.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby dilanski » Fri May 16, 2014 3:50 am

How did I miss this for months? CP was the bane of my early Brikwars anality, when all the maths had to be done perfectly for everything before the first shot was fired. Please, for the love of misguided anoraks, burn it to the ground. Brikwars has never been the most balanced game made (Still more balanced than 40K #lawlsgwsux), and once this was realised, I stopped trying to balance. 30 troops and a dreadnought vs 25 troops and a Jet seems balanced enough to me, without spending 30 minutes of my life doing maths. Under this system, it'd work out at a 33" army vs a 30" army, something that I worked out just then before my morning brew.

As long as I'm not bringing 25 guys equipped with shotguns with the fire modifier, and explosive pistols, it's going to be balanced. It's safe to say I'd rather have the 30 minutes of my life back, and have a game slightly less balanced than before, and I don't think anyone would disagree.

Also if you want to go the way of trying to limit overzealous use of specialities, I'd add a small, negligible multiplier, that only comes into effect when using a lot of them. So a 1.2 multiplier for heavies, meaning if I've only got up to 2, I can pay it no mind, while If I bring 20 heavies, it goes from 20", to 24", It may add more math, but it's certainly better than before.
ImageImage
o/
User avatar
dilanski
Now with added tractor fetish
 
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain & Subjugated Ireland

Re: New CP idea

Postby motorhead fan » Fri May 16, 2014 5:01 am

Well well well this is very good, sadly, that would mean a Phalek would cost about an inch, and they get too powerful for a fair game quite quickly if there are too many of them

Apart from that, this is a great idea
Image
User avatar
motorhead fan
Jaw-Jaw
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:17 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: New CP idea

Postby stubby » Fri May 16, 2014 8:30 am

motorhead fan wrote:Well well well this is very good, sadly, that would mean a Phalek would cost about an inch, and they get too powerful for a fair game quite quickly if there are too many of them

A Phalek that cost an inch would have the same stats as a minifig that cost an inch. If you wanted it to have boosted stats, then it would still cost an inch plus a bunch of CP.
User avatar
stubby
forum janitor
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: New CP idea

Postby IVhorseman » Fri May 16, 2014 12:54 pm

*CRAZYHORSE* wrote:I feel as if it discourages fielding hilariously ineffective units and or vehicles and promotes getting the most out of what you buy, which doesn't always serve theme and humor IMO. There would never be a reason for me to field under equipped morons as part of my army while they often cause the most hilarity and add the flavor to your army.


I feel the same way, but I also feel like you answer your own question:

*CRAZYHORSE* wrote:I think the problem lies between the players feeling of fairness and not so much in the rules themselves... It's not even about fair. It's not about having a "fair" chance to 'win' the game. It's about feeling like you can make a difference. It's about knowing that you have enough resources to help create an exciting, enjoyable and hilarious game.


And I think this is a mindset that should be embraced when playing Brikwars. Whenever I play Brikwars with new players or mention it to an interested person, I always always ALWAYS stress a major point: it's not a game about winning. After speaking these words, it's often very easy to weed out the players who show obvious distaste. I had a friend of mine say "but isn't everything about winning? hahaha just kidding but not really" when I told him that once. Naturally, I haven't made any attempt to play Brikwars with him. I had a former roommate super excited about playing Brikwars, but he threw a fit over a heroic feat and refused to make a WISG roll because it introduced the possibility that his mech might get incapacitated. He has never played again as a result (although I don't want anything to do with that dude for other unrelated reasons).

Because of this, I think using CP to tweak things is a dangerous path. Having both UI and CP means having two economies, and I'm pretty sure that the spirit of the rules pretty clearly states "fuck that shit."

I think players are smart enough to know that when one team has explosive rounds in all their pistols, the other team should have some kind of vague advantage that at least feels like it's about the same power level. Instead of CP, something a lot looser like "well these 4 units have 2 upgrades each, so you get 8 upgrades for your team" covers it just fine.

dilanski wrote:As long as I'm not bringing 25 guys equipped with shotguns with the fire modifier, and explosive pistols, it's going to be balanced. It's safe to say I'd rather have the 30 minutes of my life back, and have a game slightly less balanced than before, and I don't think anyone would disagree.


You seriously underestimate serious wargamers.

However, I agree with you, and Brikwars is kindof like the anti-wargaming wargame, so I feel like it's a 100% justifiable mindset.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: New CP idea

Postby *CRAZYHORSE* » Fri May 16, 2014 7:01 pm

I think we are on the same page IV.
Even if we do end up introducing a new points system there should definitely be some fluff in the rulebook advising players to just go by instinct rather then doing maths.
Besides that it fits the spirit of the game more, it's also the absolute quickest and most interactive way of doing it. It is also way more flexible as you can take into account outside factors such as difference in experience and location of troop deployment.

It's simply the most Brikwars like and the most fun.
stubby wrote:You were inb4beluga.
User avatar
*CRAZYHORSE*
My Little Pony
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Procrasturbating.

PreviousNext

Return to Bonus Material

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests